The correct context for their usage is when something is so crazy, outrageous, silly, contradictory or hypocritical you can't believe it. Here are some ways to use them:
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!
What are you doin'? Sucking on dreamsicles?
I feel like everyone is taking crazy pills!
Why am I telling you this? Because I feel like I've been using these lines a great deal lately, usually after reading or watching the news. The public discourse and bitter acrimony on a whole host of topics, both within and outside of the Catholic Church, has pushed people to the extremes and has called for their usage.
1. Roman Polanski. Are they serious? Do they really think because he made "good" movies (I'm not sure I've seen any of his movies) that he shouldn't be held accountable for raping a 13 year old girl? Or that because it happened so long ago, it should just be dropped? They have not and would never say this (and rightly so) for a Catholic priest or for anyone else. Why should he get away with this heinous crime? Click here for an excellent analysis.
2. Health Care. I'm not an expert here although I have tried to follow the debate closely as the Catholic Church has always been a strong advocate for affordable and accessible health care. This is a really important issue that requires careful deliberation and discussion. I am not capable of parsing these difficult issues. I would just like to point out some things that are, well, crazy.
a. I was at a lecture the other night by Bobby Schindler, the brother of Terri Schiavo. Understandably, he raised serious questions, indeed indictments, about the current practices of ethics panels in our health care system. He then went on to exhort everyone to pay close attention to the current debate lest the situation "on the ground" worsen. That's it. He simply told people to ask questions, to be involved. He was chastised by a women in the crowd for saying anything, however slight it was, against President Obama and his health care plans. That wasn't allowed. Second, she was worried that he was trying to "influence these young minds." Well, yes, of course he was. That is what public debate is about, especially at a university. My qualm is her desire to immediately shut down differences, discourse and debate. So much for tolerance of differences, democracy and the intellectual pursuit of truth.
b. The U.S. bishops are for health care reform. Always have been, always will be. But if the brave few ask difficult questions about abortion being included or respect for the principle of subsidiarity they are characterized as being held in bondage by the Republicans. This insult is usually hurled by writers who have explicitly campaigned for President Obama. The pot calling the kettle?
Once again, my problem isn't with differences of opinion, as this is, after all, a matter of prudential judgment, not doctrine, and therefore good Catholics can hold different positions. At least they should be. My problem is with the shutting down of debate and discussion with those who disagree with you, especially through hypocritical judgments or outlandish accusations. Particularly shameful was Michael Sean Winters, whom I was really starting to like and value his judgments, calling people that opposed government expansion racists.
The fact of the matter is that Catholics are politically homeless. Neither party keeps together the difficult tensions, in this case, of subsidiary and solidarity.
c. By the way, whatever happened to the principle of subsidiarity? Namely, whatever happened to the idea that problems should be dealt with by the smallest unit possible that the common good allows? This is a part of Catholic Social Justice teaching just as much as solidarity with the poor. But it is rarely mentioned by the current Catholic advocates for the currently proposed health care. I'm just saying, shouldn't that be part of the debate too?
d. Lastly, I find it incredibly ironic that those who for decades have lamented the bishops' supposed desire to preserve institutional prestige and power in the public sphere, (see the editorializing at the National Catholic Reporter) are now suddenly worried that if the bishops are too outspoken on the issues of the day the Catholic Church will lose its credibility in the public square. I guess one can only be a "prophetic witness" if you agree with the National Catholic Reporter. "We played a song for you and you would not dance, we sang a dirge and would not weep."
3. Lastly, we have the good sisters. The Vatican has begun an investigation into the life and health of women's religious communities here in the U.S., including their fidelity to the Deposit of Faith as it is taught by the authentic Magisterium of the Catholic Church. In order to participate in the study one has to make a profession of faith. The sisters aren't happy with the whole thing, but especially the last part. Think about how crazy that is: professed religious in the Catholic Church don't want to take a profession of faith, or won't. They say it is because it is an insult, that it questions their faith and fidelity to the Church. Meanwhile, they write articles that deny the Church's settled teachings (See this week's Commonweal). I have had to take a profession of faith and an oath of fidelity three times: at my diaconate ordination, my priestly ordination and upon being made a pastor. Each time I was excited and proud. If you believe what the Church teaches, why would you not want to proclaim it from the rooftops?
No comments:
Post a Comment